News & Politics

Rant

Studies Outcome: Negative Results of Same-Sex Parenting

Posted 11 months ago|98 comments|972 views
What the studies reveal...
Written by
"Two studies released Sunday may act like brakes on popular social-science assertions that gay parents are the same as — or maybe better than — married mother-father parents. "The empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go," University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus said in his study in Social Science Research."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012...

"Two new studies challenge previous claims that children raised in gay households are no worse off than those raised by married heterosexual parents. In a survey of 2,988 adults aged 18-39, those raised by lesbian mothers had negative outcomes in 24 of 40 categories when compared to children of married heterosexual couples."
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/June/...

"People who reported that their mother or father had a same-sex relationship at some point were different than children raised by their biological, still-married parents in 25 of the study's 40 measures. And most of the time, they fared worse. The children of parents who at some point had a same-sex partner were more likely to be on welfare, have a history of depression, have less education and report a history of sexual abuse, the study found."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/video/child...

Surveying nearly 3,000 U.S. adults, ages 18 to 39, about their childhood and lives now, considering details about income, stability of relationships, sexual abuse and mental health history. Out of the respondents, 163 reported that their mother had been in a same sex relationship, 73 said that their father had done the same. Mark Regnerus associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, said the study simply tried to answer the question of whether children of parents with same-sex relationships are different... seeing that there is a prevailing sentiment in the media,
that same-sex parented families differ little from heterosexual parented ones.

Now off the cuff it seems to matter little if there are scientific studies to show negative impacts from same-sex parenting... the real haters yell "Bigot" simply because the study was done. Just think of the audacity of Professors conducting such a study, and not taking the liberal media's word that same-sex parenting is the greatest thing since sliced bread... seriously! One thing that we can be assured of is the assassination of the character of the participants in the study, the study's documentation, and the credentials of the University. If the outcomes aren't in-line with the gay agenda,
promoted by Democrat's Obama... it is sure to get the guillotine!

But here is some thing to consider about a government that wants more people dependent on the welfare system, depressed and on anti-depressant drugs, with less education, subjected to more sexual abuse to keep those abortions going...
it would seem a no-brainer for Democrats to politically escalate the acceptance of
such a family description. All inflamed feelings aside... look at the facts.

I say "FINALLY" someone with some gonads to stand up to the 'tidal wave' of heterophobia... that seems to emasculate politicians on the cutting edge of their careers. IF someone exposes the facts, or recants their faith in the 'gay promise land' ...or merely is strait and unapologetic... and God for bid, they don't forbid God, their political death warrant is signed sealed and delivered. But I like Mark Regnerus' unapologetic, nonpolitical style when asked...

"Q: Why did you undertake the study about adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?

A: Two reasons. First, because I thought I could pull together a diverse group of people to figure out how best to test the "no differences" hypothesis. And second, because it's an interesting research question, and I don't mind navigating controversy a bit. I'm at a point in my career where I'm less concerned about making my professional peers happy and more about studying interesting things. In particular, the "no differences" hypothesis seemed quirky to me. I wondered if it was really true."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhitea...

"Is Gay Parenting Bad for the Kids?
Children of gay couples are disadvantaged — because of family instability."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...

"Don't Waste Your Life" by John Piper
http://dwynrhh6bluza.cloudfront.net/reso...
UPDATE - 10 months ago
I can't even describe what was found in this gay rights leader's arrest WARNING DISTURBING CONTENT...

"San Francisco police have arrested veteran gay rights advocate Larry Brinkin in connection with felony possession of child pornography... Brinkin, 66, who worked for the San Francisco Human Rights Commission before his retirement in 2010, was taken into custody Friday night"
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-...%29
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
11 months ago: Truth:

You are a racist, homophobe, cracker, Christian global warmer you are.
11 months ago: Sounds like you have me confused with TCG !:]
BTW, could you get him into this conversation... haven't heard from him in a while.
11 months ago: BTW I love the Google "Pride" ads running on this rant,
I guess the 'gloves' are off... must have stepped on a few toes !:]
11 months ago: Sorry Red,

but some of these Google "Pride" ads running on this rant crack me up, like the one that says...

"Having a wife and two kids ...no one ever questioned my sexual orientation" (With a picture of a 'tough biker')

...Seriously? Where is the "pride" in having a wife and two kids, and always looking 'over the fence' and checking out the neighbors husband? Exactly!
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: "Children of gay couples are disadvantaged — because of family instability."

is the rest of that quote: "because right wing homophobic christian whackjobs won't let them get married..."
11 months ago: Why don't you dispute what TB has posted (if you can) with some facts and figures rather than stooping to bigotry and name calling?

That would be the far more intelligent way to contribute and make a case.
11 months ago: Pfct appears every now and then and shows his what liberalism is all about.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: Oh Red...still confusing Liberalism with liberalism...glad to see you haven't changed a bit.
Secrios
Secrios
England
7 months ago: Research just to take away a right is wrong, even if its true. You might as well not allow disabled people not to get married or have kids because to you; you would think the kids would have to take care of them instead.

We liberals are aiming for a future, not for productivity but for the freedom to do anything normal people can do.
11 months ago: PH is that really you? IF so... a hearty welcome back, but I miss the puppy !:]

...however your assertions that marriage somehow makes someone disadvantaged... well 50% divorce rates across the board, those "advantages" will be short lived.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: Well if there is a 50% divorce rate wouldn't family instability also make kids in heterosexual marriages equally disadvantaged?
11 months ago: Exactly PH...

You make the studies point clear, if Divorce and Marriage isn't the determining factor in the disadvantages shown in the study's results... then it is primarily because of Gay Parenting.
Secrios
Secrios
England
7 months ago: That elitism. Just because some marriages are stronger than others mean nothing.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: Interesting study. If you actually look at the criteria for the study the definition of a gay family is totally bogus. Instead it should be a study of children of parents who ever had an affair with a same sex person. Likewise I think the study is suspect because it was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, two socially-conservative organizations that are totally biased. http://familyscholars.org/2012/06/13/the...

It would be interesting to have a study of the children of all of the thousands of gay couples that have been married, (something that is relatively new) since that lends much stability to the relationship. Many of the supposed negative aspects of the children are probably caused by the persecution and harassment by the homophobes who objected to their family situations, but there are many more contradictory studies that show that kids of gay couples do better than others.

Review of every previous study found little difference between children of gay parents and hetro parents. http://www.livescience.com/6073-children...

Another review of 100 studies find that kids of gay people might actually do better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazi...

Another study found that kids did better academically. study finds that children of lesbian parents do better academically.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/...

11 months ago: Altruist seeing as you rarely come to the table for discussion, and most often are a one-hit wonder on your response... this single ref should suffice to answer yours...

"Problems with the APA-cited studies were their small size; dependence on wealthy, white, well-educated lesbian mothers; and failure to examine common outcomes for children, such as their education, employment and risks for poverty, criminality, early childbearing, substance abuse and suicide."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012...

...if you would like to continue, we might just have that 'discussion' that fails to materialize in so many other comments that you make on issues !;]
11 months ago: Al.

Its ALL about what Jesus said.

"...a man and a woman..."

PERIOD.

That's the only consideration in my limited mind.

11 months ago: Great work Truth. Here is a simple question for all those gay marriage supporters. Let us see if they have an answer or just throw mud.

When no has the right to determine what marriage is, not even biological boundaries. Who will have the right to determine what marriage is not?


11 months ago: After you answer Jakarta's question, answer this one:

What did Jesus say about marriage?

Hmmmm?
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: What does Jesus have to do with anything? Marriage in the United States is a legal contract that requires a government license. Would it bother you if Judges had to marry gay couples instead of ministers/priests/pastors?
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: TB sorry I have a life outside RR.

The point is that if you define gay parents as anyone that has had a gay affair you are loading the study with bisexuals, confused hetrosexuals, and a lot of people who are just plain confused about their sexuality. This study isn't comparing stable hetrosexual family units against stable homosexual family units (married) It is comparing apples and fruitloops. Therefore I conclude that one study using flawed premises does not negate the hundreds of contradictory studies that went before.

A Kinsey study of 5,000 individuals found that 37% of males and 13% of females had had an orgasm with a same sex partner, even though only 10% of males and 2-6% of females were exclusively homosexual. http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/research
/ak-data.html#homosexuality

Obviously Jakarta it is the individual culture that determines what a marriage is. In religious communities they have one set of standards in the gay community another. In America the right to determine marriage resides in the state, in Justices of Peace, in captains of vessels. The point is should the religious community be allowed to deny basic constitutionally protected rights to non members?

Red Jesus said precious little about marriage except to discourage people from getting married. "Not only did Jesus choose not to marry, he encouraged his followers to leave household and domestic concerns in order to follow him (Mark 10:28-30). He even refers to those "who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:10-13). Whatever that means, it's certainly not an endorsement of marriage."

"And in Matthew chapter 22, he says that in the age to come, 'people will neither marry nor be given in marriage'… If the age to come is the perfection of a new heaven and earth, then this perfect world doesn't seem to include marriage…" http://sofachurch.blogspot.com/2012/06/m...

Seems to me Jesus is saying that in the future fewer and fewre people will be getting married but will just be freely cohabiting as the trend is in Europe.

11 months ago: Altruist,

I am sorry for pulling you away from your life, and I do appreciate your input beyond a line and dash. I have to admit you did answer everything there is to know in one of your phrases used to refute me... and for this I am thankful, and if full agreement. You summed it up when you said... "confused heterosexuals" !:]
Content Removed by Truthbrary
11 months ago: BTW, about your "Kinsey Study" ...it's worth less than the time it took you to type out and cut and paste links to it...

"Decades after Kinsey's findings were used as the "scientific" excuse required to carry out a vast cultural revolution – and destroyed millions of lives – it turned out that Kinsey's "research" subjects had been known child molesters, prison convicts and prostitutes. Hardly a cross section of American life."
http://www.theinterim.com/features/autho...
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: I really find it interesting how a small group on the fringe (people like Truthberry, Jakarta and RSG) who can dedicate so much time to spreading such deep-seeded hatred all in the name of the deity that they chose to believe in while claiming that said deity is all about never ending love...
11 months ago: How can the universal acceptance, endorsement, or the ignoring of ALL our human behaviors be they good, bad, ethical or immoral, murderous or otherwise be called LOVE?

Call it what you want, but that's not love.
Secrios
Secrios
England
7 months ago: So you saying hating every one is better option?
11 months ago: PH you are following the worn out tactic from the far left activist that all those who oppose their own ideology are "haters". I don't believe you will find any indication on Truth, Huey nor my posts which state we hate anyone. Unless as I stated you are basing hate on anyone who opposes ones on beliefs or ideology. In which case you should classify yourself a "hater" of all those people who have beliefs or ideology different than yours. The discussion and debating of whether something is good or not good for the general public does not mean any hatred must be involved.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: This may be true. In general I would say that I have a very big problem towards people who tend to think that they have some right to tell other people how they can live their lives based on their personal interpretation of .

This is generally my opinion towards people who reside in America (or Canadians who comment a lot on American politics). This country was not, is not, never has been nor ever will be a "Christian" nation. People are free from religious oppression in this country. If you don't believe in gay marriage there are numerous ways to remedy that: 1. Don't marry a gay. 2. Don't attend a church that marries gay couples, 3. Mind your own business. Let them "burn in hell for their sins" or whatever else you believe in. Why does it matter so much to you??? Why should what other American citizens want to do in their private life regarding a contract between 2 consenting adults and a government license be any of yours or my business??? Why does what happens in other peoples bedrooms bother Conservatives soooooooooo much? I thought that Conservatives were supposed to be all for small government, not a big brother government that can tell people who to love and what they can do in their own lives. How is that Liberty for all?
11 months ago: As I told DJ on numerous occasions, when he had a problem with my interest in American Politics is... What gets flushed down your toilets, soon ends up in our drinking water! And this it true because America is supposed to be 'advanced' and sets a precedent for other 'developing' nations... or just those used for consumable goods like oil and water. IF Canada didn't play along, we would have been Iraq years ago... doubt it? Check out the remains of other nations that don't play...

Liberty for all? Marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman... perverting a historical, and religious term is an encroachment on religious liberties.
11 months ago: Perfect or who ever wishes to answer. I have tried to get a reasonably answer to this before but no "gay marriage" supporter has ever answered. For the most part the old "hater" tactic has been invoked with a lot of mud slinging but no rational answer. If you want to be a true champion for you cause then give a rational answer to this situation i.e you tell me where you would draw the line or if you would draw a line and tell me why or why not. Very simple, if you have a rational case then show it now. What better time than today to be a shinning light for your cause?

1. You believe two men or two women should have the right to be legally married and enjoy all the benefits of such correct? You believe this because if two people love each other they should have the "right" to "legal" marriage and no one should dictate who they can or can not marry regardless of the two peoples sex, correct? If you believe this then you should also believe;

2. One man has the right to marry two or more women or one woman has the right to marry two or more men. You must believe this because no one has the right to dictate who a grown person can marry. These are people in love and if two women are in love with one man they have the "right" to marry. Or are you saying that only "two" people have the right to marry? If so then you are obviously a "polygophobe" or even worse a "polyamorophbe". Why would you say people should marry whom they please but not how many they please. So you must believe multiple spouses are also natural and acceptable and that; Cont.
11 months ago: 3. It is natural and acceptable for three, four, five or more gay men or gay women to marry each other. You must believe this is acceptable if you feel multiple spouses are acceptable. Why would you say multiple spouses are acceptable only for heterosexuals? Gay people who wish to have multiple spouses should have the same rights as heterosexuals who wish to have multiple spouses correct? So five gay men should have the right to marry and have all the benefits and protections marriage entails correct? After all who would be hurt by this anyway? So;

4. Five gay men marry and get a house together. They begin to adopt young foster children. They only adopt young boys though. They have a right to do so because they have all the rights and government protections of "married" people. The boys seem withdrawn and oddly do not speak much in public. Do you think there is a problem with this scenario or are you open minded and progressive enough to keep quite and let that normal and natural family be? After all they do have government endorsement and if you say anything you might appear to be a "Polihomophobe" right........
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: Isn't telling churches and ministers/pastors that want to marry gay couples that they can't an encroachment of their religious liberties?
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: I don't really care who marries who. I think the Government should get out of marriage and let the churches decide what they want to allow. Of course the right wingers (those people who call for small government all the time) would never allow this to happen because if they did then they couldn't govern and pass legislation to prevent churches that want to marry gay couples from doing so.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
11 months ago: So then if Billy wants to marry his sister and it's legal, that is not in any respect out of line? Also this act should be universally supported and ap[plauded by everyone anyone otherwise they are intolerant and haters, right?

PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: You can marry your 14 year old cousin in Alabama...

The churches should decide who gets married.

If the government is involved then you cannot prevent gay couples from getting married. The United States government is Constitutionally prohibited from governing based on religious belief.
11 months ago: You didn't answer the question.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: I did...it's just not the answer you want.

>>>I DO NOT CARE WHO MARRIES WHO...IT IS NOT MY BUSINESS<<<

You didn't answer mine:

Isn't telling a church that wants to marry gay couples that they cannot an encroachment on that church and its member's religious liberties?
11 months ago: Okay. I'll answer and the re-state mine.
If the government allows it, and a church wants to marry gay couples they can. However, they have no biblical basis for doing so.

Now to my question -- any form of "marriage" is to be sanctioned, applauded and endorsed in your book.

Male to male, brother to sister, father to daughter, man to sheep. If the government makes it legal, who are we to disparage or frown upon that.

It's all equal and nobody else's business. If someone does not like it, to bad. They are all then bigoted haters.

Is that correct?
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: The Government SHOULD NOT be involved in marriage. Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction for Conservatives like you? Small Government is your goal and your platform right??????? Or is it more like I already said...Small government where it's convenient and big government where you want it (such as marriage where conservatives can govern and pass legislation to enforce their religious views while forcing them upon everyone)??????????????????
11 months ago: Perfect I agree with you that part of the problem is government involvement. Right now I am 100% sure that you could go to California or Vancouver and find someone who calls themselves a Christian minister to marry two men or two women. The issue I see is that the gay activists want "laws" which make anyone who disagrees with this type of marriage to be violating the law.

This is where the fall however will be by trying to justify their actions through laws. If gay activists gain government support for the idea that "no one can say what marriage is defined as" then there will be no one who can define what marriage should not be. There will be no grounds to restrict what marriage should or should not be i.e five gay men will eventually have the legal right to marry and will have government protection to proceed as they will under that protection. All those who question their adoption of young foster children will be labeled as "haters" and all those questioning their actions will be silent or face criminal charges. The laws are already on the books as "hate crimes". When will Christians have laws which give those who walk into a church and start shooting extra jail time? Does it bother you to think of such laws? then you should be also bothered that there are special laws for gays. Why is a gay person being shot more important than a Christian being shot?

Yes the push to have government fix everything is creating the situation in which our lives are becoming dictated by government.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: A few comments:

1. Laws shouldn't be passed to make it legal for gay people to marry...laws shouldn't be passed that make it illegal. If the government must be involved in marriage the basic law for all Americans should read something like this: "If two adults of sane mind consent to marry one another they shall be granted the necessary license to do so"...that's it. This type of law does not mention nor require any specific church to honor/recognize the license nor does it require any church to preform the service. Finding a person to actually marry said couple would be their own responsibility. This type of law would also stop any one group from preventing a church or minister or judge who does want to preform the service from doing so.

As for hate crimes. In general that term is used to describe an act of a majority against a minority. Gay people are a minority, just like Jews, Muslims, Black people, Hispanic people etc, The United States has a history (and a Constitution) designed to protect minorities from majorities. It doesn't bother me that there are stricter hate crime laws to protect minorities from majorities...that is how the Constitution was designed and that is how U.S. law precedent has been established for 236 years.

There is no real evidence (the study that Truth used is flawed at its foundation) that having 2 gay parents is any more harmful to a child than having 2 crackheads for parents. I would venture to say that the children of the gay couple have a much better chance in life than the children of Margie Marie Simms and Fred Phelps do...even though they are a "good christian couple in a traditional marriage".
11 months ago: Well as I said, gays can find persons who call themselves ministers to say their vows in front of today. There is nothing stopping them from doing so. The gay activists have been offered civil unions but they will not stop until they have "marriage". So why is this? Because by law the gay couples will be considered equal to heterosexual couples and this means if I do not treat two men who are "married" the same as a heterosexual couple then I will be in conflict with the law. This will cause a conflict with my faith and the gay activists know this and are hell bent to put this into effect.

As far as the majority / minority thing goes, to my knowledge being a homosexual has never been proven to be genetic based. If so the issue would long be resolved because simple tests would allow all those who are gay by genetic flaw to marry each other. However those who are gay as a lifestyle would have some difficulty. I suspect this is why the gay community is not pushing for the genetic "proof" as not all if any are due to genetics. Yet you claim these laws protect a minority but that "minority of proven gays" has never been proven to even exist. So with this as a basis I suggest we make laws protecting persons abducted by aliens. Anytime someone is attacked and later that person identifies themselves as being prior alien abducted the punishment should be harsher for the perpetrator. After all we have no more proven that homosexuality is a genetic flaw than we have that persons claiming to have been abducted by aliens have been. At this point we are only accepting that the one is as they say, so why not believe the other and provide laws for the alien abducted minorities.

I think you have something on the question of which children fair better in life, the gay couples who raise children. Children of Christian parents. Or children of drug addicted parents. I would like to see you do an unbiased post on this PH. I have my suspicions on which children are more successful in life but if you really feel it all boils down the same then lets see some numbers so to speak.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: But what makes your marriage more real than a marriage by a minister of a church other than yours?

How on earth does another couple using the word "Marriage" impact your marriage at all. Should Atheists not be allowed to get married? What about Buddhists? Hindus? Based on your statements you are offended by any marriage that is not a Christian marriage from your own particular brand of Christianity.

If you believe being homosexual is a choice then that is a personal issue that you have.
11 months ago: PH,

What if Obama sanctioned animal-human "marriage"? People without morals couldn't care less.... the negative impact on society and on social structure (like what this whole rant is about)... would it be fair to say you don't care if humans marry animals? Seeing as "marriage" to you is just a random word...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80...
11 months ago: "If you believe being homosexual is a choice then that is a personal issue that you have. "

Okay. Then do personal issues have to equivocate to hatred or homophobia?

I don't think so. Do you?
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: This is a ludicrous argument. The implication that by allowing 2 consenting adults to enter into a legal contract would in turn lead to people being allowed to marry a dog or a toaster is idiotic. If you want government involved in marriage to the point where they can legislate who can and cannot get married then you have to deal with the fact that the United States government is Constitutionally banned from governing based on religious belief...therefore if the government is involved then there is no Constitutional means to ban gay marriage.

If the marriage licensing process was handled by the churches then you would be able to freely choose a church that doesn't allow gay marriage. It is much simpler and involves less government...something that Conservatives should be in favor of.............
11 months ago: "The implication that by allowing 2 consenting adults to enter into a legal contract would in turn lead to people being allowed to marry a dog or a toaster is idiotic."

Who are U to say it wouldn't?

Please respond to what I posted above.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: Can a dog consent to enter a contract? How about an inanimate object? It is a truly immature argument.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: No I don't think that a personal issue has to equivocate to hatred or homophobia...but that does not mean that it can't lead to hatred or homophobia.
11 months ago: Then why is it that any time ANY scrutiny comes to bear regarding this, that it is ALWAYS construed by the ignorant and the liberals (other side if you will) to be that?

Is that really fair or honest in the scheme of things?

11 months ago: PH,

Until a few years ago your 'scientists' concluded that the gay experience was a mental disorder... where is the "consenting adults to enter into a legal contract" there? Isn't it all about "love" ...who are you to say that the "animals" in question for the animal-human "marriage" don't love each other? Or is that just your nonreligious belief? Like Jakarta99 stated earlier by a question you didn't answer by the way, so I will post it again, seeing as you didn't comprehend it the first time...

"When no has the right to determine what marriage is, not even biological boundaries. Who will have the right to determine what marriage is not?"
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
11 months ago: They arent my scientists...

I did answer that. As it stands marriage is a contract. It requires a government license. 2 consenting adults are required in order to enter into this contract.

Again, I'll just ignore the dog thing, it is just a completely brainless argument.

If the government is going to be involved then from a legal standpoint that's what marriage is. If the licensing power was granted to individual churches the whole issue is simplified and people who don't want gay couples to have equal rights could pick a church that feels the same way. Of course that's not what conservatives want because then they can't play big brother on the issue
10 months ago: Now, once again, and stop dodging the issue: Must everyone agree with everything that comes down the pipe that is government sanctioned concerning marriage? No, No a thousand times NO.

The beastiality issue is no less relevant than the incest issue. PH - yours is the brainless argument if you are pretending that that scenario cannot exist in the future.

Again churches can marry whomever they want. But there is NO biblical basis whatsoever for same sex marriage. That makes the ceremony a sham and the church not only hypocritical, but heretical.

Having the intelligence and common sense to understand that does not make one a hater, but a dissenter. There is a HUGE difference. Some folks are just too ignorant and/or stupid to understand that.

Also, I am not a "conservative." That label is far too diminutive and limited to be accurate. Anyone who tries to place that label specifically on me just shows their own shortsightedness with regard to their understanding of my position on theses types of things.

Dissent does not equal hate. Disagreement does not equal fear. Folks who feel that way have more issues than I really care to deal with because something has snapped in their brain

The beastiality argument is just as valid as the incest argument. If you don't think so, the only person you are fooling is yourself.

BTW – This rant was not about marriage, but about parenting. You have yet to bring anything substantive at all to bear with regard to refuting TB' original argument. All you've done is dodged the issue so I guess you are empty in that regard.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: You don't have to agree with what the government says...that doesn't mean that you get to do whatever you want. If the government is to be involved in marriage they have to allow it the same way for everyone. Do I have to agree with the way that you want "marriage" defined?

The Bible is irrelevant, unless of course you are arguing that Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, Scientologists etc should also not be allowed to get married. Just because you are a Christian does not give you a right to make everyone else be a Christian...those are privately held beliefs not governing principals.

An animal still cannot consent to enter a contract, and until that time people marrying animals is not a real argument against two PEOPLE who love eachother and happen to be the same sex getting married.

The "sham" issue is once again your own personal problem. You, for reasons I cannot understand, believe that your personal interpretation of Christianity is the ONLY one...which is ludicris...if that were true there would not be any other fairy tales...ooops I mean religions...What makes your version of the fantasy more real than Westboro's version??? (P.S. The fact that you believe it is not evidence that it's real).

You may not be a "conservative" on all issues, but I know that you have been a proponent of small government...why not support small government on marriage issues? Is it because you are afraid that churches that are not as far right as your own may allow the gay people to marry so you must govern to stop them??? You still didn't answer me...why does it matter so much to you? Does the fact that I'm married make you any less married? Other people using the word married does not prevent you from still being married.

Dissent does not equal hate...irrational fear however is the breeding pool of hate.

10 months ago: Dudage,

You need to read a bible before you try to act like you know what it says.

Find a single chapter or verse in either the OT or NT where homosexuality is endorsed and gay marriage sanctioned and applauded. Just one. ONE. I challenge you. Like I said, they can do what they want but it is not by any stretch biblical and any church that endorses it is heretical. Period and you can't prove otherwise. I challenge you.

Also, I don't care if a person wants to marry a shoe.

I'm not legislating anything and I'm not going to try and stop them unless they ask me. That does not mean I hate them or are in any way whatsoever afraid or phobic of them. That's a laugh.

The whole homophobia thing is blown out of proportion so many times. Does it exist? Yes. In every instance where it is claimed? Not by a long shot. It's a victim mentatility.

If these folks would stop trying to force thier view on everyone else they would probably get less backlash. However if they want to continue to live and act like victims, that's your and their problem not mine in the least.
I could really care less.


PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: I have read the Bible, many times.

If a church wants to endorse gay marriage that is their business. People like you are the ones forcing your views on others by requesting laws to be written to prevent those churches from doing what they want. Freedom of Religion goes both ways, nobody can force you to believe what they believe, but you also have no right to stop them.

You still have dodged the issue of people of other religions getting married. Are they also heretics? Just because you believe in a fairy tale doesn't mean everyone else has to believe it and interpret it the same way you do.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: Marriage has two parts.

One part is the legal and social contractual part of it. In the United States, the government sanctions marriages by issuing licenses and in many cases taxing the couple. This part of marriage is the legal binding part, being a government controlled contract the US Government is not permitted to pass laws bases on religious preference.

The other part is the religious part. For you (and some other Christians) it is a sacrament, a holy union. Churches that are of the same mind set as you are likely to agree with you that marriage is between one man and one woman. Conversely, Hinduism does not view homosexuality as a sin. Marriage is not a holy sacrament in Hinduism but rather just a social/legal contract. The Dali Lama recently spoke on his views of marriage:

"Too many people in the West have given up on marriage. They don't understand that it is about developing a mutual admiration of someone, a deep respect and trust and awareness of another human's needs."

Religious people often struggle to realize that there are two parts of marriage. The government sanctioned legal contractual part is not related to your PERSONAL religious views. I don't care if a church wants to say "No way will we marry a gay couple" but the government cannot make the same judgement.

As far as your feelings about other churches allowing gay marriage...that's just too bad for you. People have the right to exercise their religion however they chose. Just like nobody can stop you from exercising how you want. If you want to be a member of a church that is anti gay marriage and won't marry gay couples that's too bad for me...but legally, constitutionally and contractually you have no right to prevent gay couples from getting married.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
10 months ago: PH - You can't be that dense.

"People like you are the ones forcing your views on others by requesting laws to be written to prevent those churches from doing what they want. Freedom of Religion goes both ways, nobody can force you to believe what they believe, but you also have no right to stop them."

What a load of bull-sh-t.

I am not forcing anything on anyone. You just don't like the way I think and that is unacceptable and roils you.

READ CLOSELY: They can do what they want. Understand? They can even get married in a heretical "Christian" church if they like. That's their business and their problem. They are the ones who have to deal with their own consequences come Judgment Day just like you and I will. Have you got that now?

"As far as your feelings about other churches allowing gay marriage...that's just too bad for you"

Not at all. Becuase I really don't care. It has no effect on me or my life at all. It's their and your issue, not mine.

I'm not preventing gay or any people from getting married. What are you smoking to come up with that inane drivel at this point of dialogue? You are now wasting my time.

If you have read the bible "many times" as you say, then you would know it DOES NOT sanction homosexual unions. Chapter and verse it if it does. Otherwise shut up. All you are showing is your continued ignorance on the subject.

Also - You have your own deeply ingrained fairytailish world view and I have mine. Big deal. To each his own.

I have no problem with folks having other religions as long as they are not violent and keep their hands off of me and mine.

Your problem is that you don't like the way I think, and that's YOUR problem. A big one too because I am who I am and if you don't like my stance on this issue tough tomatoes.

However, if you try to make me out to be a homophobe or a hater you are just showing a profoundly delusional and bigoted you are. You even stated that you HATED Christians in another post a while back. That's pretty broad and damnable paint brush for you to pick up. If that's not prejudice I don't know what is.

Here's the deal, I can love people and not agree with everything they do or stand for. You can't.

I can accept other people beliefs and have tolerance without having the need to berate, denigrate and place them all in the same pigeon hole. You apparently cannot.

The piece TB wrote had to do with raising children. You don't even like children so why you even bothering to post here just shows that you have an axe to grind and not much else to offer here.

It's a shame. Evidently you can't seem to understand where I'm coming from because you are spouting the same stuff you spouted when this started. Didn't you understand any of it?

Your argument has not grown one bit and like I said before, you are now wasting my time and my time is too important to waste restating that which should have been easily understood and grasped from the beginning. I wrote it plain enough but you keep injecting your own venom and broad stroked generalizations, and prejudice and then vainly try to pin it on me. Not going to work.

My position on the issue needs no defense and there are many that see it the same way regardless of who likes it or not.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: The Bible is irrelevant...the Bible is not a governing document for this country.
10 months ago: You are dense. What's happened to you since you left?

The Bible is ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT when folks are getting married in a church.
It's particularly, specifically and even more relevant when said folks want to claim a Christian foundation and the blessings of the God of the Bible on their union.

You're not just irrational but certifiable. Good-bye.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: Are you stupid?

I am talking the LEGAL act of marriage. The one where you go to the courthouse/government building and get a GOVERNMENT issued marriage license.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SPIRITUAL ACT OF MARRIAGE IN A CHURCH.
10 months ago: Now now. You are the only one sounding stupid here.
10 months ago: Your debate technique has really gone into the toilet.
10 months ago: PH makes a good point. However, I can give you an even more simplified answer, Huey. It's slippery slope fallacy. Your argument makes no logical sense by any measure of argumentation. To say that gay marriage leads to marrying toasters and other such nonesense, is such a ludacris argument you carrry the burden of proof, not the other way around.
10 months ago: "To say that gay marriage leads to marrying toasters and other such nonesense."

Sick people have sex with all kinds of animals every day and that's a fact. I never say gay marriage leads to it but it's not that much Wackier.

As far as logical outcomes, when marriage is defined to mean anything other than a union between a man and a woman it ceases to be marriage. Union? Yes. Marriage. Nope. Some my not like my opinion, but that is their problem not mine.

Also - "The two people in love argument"

So then ANY two people who are in love should be allowed to be legally married, right or wrong?

10 months ago: Also - whether it is mother son, or brother sister that's okay too? Right?

Like I've been saying all along; If folks wna to do that kind of stuff and it's legal, go ahead.

However DO NOT expect everyone to applaud that behavior or else label them as phobic. That's sheer non-sense and playing the VICTIM card.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: Two gay people getting married is not the same as getting married to your sister/brother....

So in your head getting married to a toaster/dog is the same as two consenting adults getting married?
10 months ago: PH you seem hung-up on the dog/toaster... my link had nothing to do with either, it stated that a boy was forced to marry a cow... dugh... BTW the cow seemed consenting !:]
10 months ago: You think that the argument is ludicrousness because you take it to oblivion, I merely stated in this post that family is what matters, and messing with nature has negative results, and it is reflective in what the Regnerus Study concluded.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: Again, your argument is idiotic. Same sex marriage is legal in Iowa...the law had no impact on the legal status of being able to marry your mom or son or brother or sister...all that is still illegal. You make insane claims because you are anti gay marriage...allowing 2 consenting gay adults to marry does not also make it legal to marry your sibling, parent, cat, dog, cow, toaster or television. It is just so stupid that this is the last time I will address it...people who make these arguments sound like crazy people
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: Homosexuality is found in nearly every species in nature.
10 months ago: ...and illegal in other states... it is obvious the "laws" in question are arbitrary and not based on thousands of years of historical precedent... this is why we need to base laws on history and definition of terms, and not change them.
10 months ago: The "homosexuality" found in nature... is merely dominance and like a mutation, without genetic procreation. Eeeaaah, What's up Doc?
Content Removed by Huey Newton
10 months ago: As Truths' post pointed out there is evidence that children being raised in a gay parenting home struggle and have difficulties not seen as prevalent in heterosexual parenting homes. The government sanctioning of gay marriage will result in foster children and orphans being adopted more prevalently by gay couples. Also by tearing down marriage between one man and one woman the door will be open for other more extreme forms of "non traditional marriage". So yes there is a great potential for innocents to be hurt or adversely effected by this.

Now the gay activists want to tear down marriage and rebuild it in which defines gay couple who take vows and have sanctioning by government as being the same as heterosexual couples. However it is not the same and this is what marriage defenders are saying. Calling a gay couple who take vows the same as a heterosexual couple is the same as saying a dog is the same as a cat because they are both animals. Also as far as anyone knows homosexuality is simply a "lifestyle". People are not born nor all of the sudden at puberty have a natural desire to put a cigarette in their mouth, light it up and inhale the smoke. This is something that a person does as a lifestyle. People do not have a natural born need to stick a needle in their arm and inject a foreign substance into their veins either. This is an acquired non natural "lifestyle" activity. Yet the gay activists say we should just take their word for it that people are born "gay" and have no choice. That it is a "natural" thing even though many of these "born gay" people do not realize they were born that way until in their mid forties or fifties and after they have had a long heterosexual marriage and several children. The gay activists want us to tear down marriage all on their word that this it is not just a "lifestyle".
10 months ago: Continued:

Basically with this logic we could just decide one day that husbands who abuse their wives are just born that way. There is no proof of this other than their word for it but since there are so many of them it is decided they must be "natural born wife beaters" and thus should have special marital concessions. The laws will be changed to read that since these husbands cannot help themselves there can be no legal action taken on the husband after he beats his wife. Also since many of these husbands don't realize they were born to beat their wives until years after marriage it is decided the wife cannot divorce the husband due to abuse if the husband declares he is a "natural born wife abuser". Again there needs to be no real evidence that he was born this way only his stating such is enough. The gays can state they are born that way and without any real evidence that it is not just a chosen life style they demand laws to be changed for them so why not for things such as spouse abuse? It has as much ground to stand on as many other "alternative lifestyles" do.

10 months ago: That's right Jakarta. There is no reason to re-define that which has been perfectly defined.

Thank you for bringing the post back on subject.

10 months ago: Jakarta, you seem to be unable to firmly grasp the concept of a LOGICAL argument.
10 months ago: PH says... "You don't have to agree with what the government says...that doesn't mean that you get to do whatever you want" ...really? Then why are judges overruling laws that state that Marriage is between a man and a woman?? But then all you need is a liberal gov to waver on any issue...

"The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_...

...now the same people are changing their views because the ones funding their stay in the White House are pro-homosexual. PH it has nothing to do with "religion" it only has to do with money... and the special interest behind it.
10 months ago: PH,

For the record marriage is a historical institution. Religion has had their part in constructing differing rituals, however historically "marriage" has and always will be between a man and a woman. That is the historical precedence and definition. Any religion can marry as long as it is true to that criteria.

"In California, MORE THAN SEVEN MILLION VOTERS amended the state Constitution by enacting Proposition 8, which restored the definition of marriage in that state as the union of one man and one woman. But shortly thereafter, a handful of activists filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to overturn that marriage amendment and nullify the votes of the people."
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/marri...

PH where is your DEMOCRACY NOW? When "We the People" vote, pass laws, and then have special interest overturn and unravel democracy... you are fighting a fools war! That is why your Osama is trying to rid America of it's democracy.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: I'm speaking on a Federal level. States are free to pass laws that limit who can marry in said state.

The Defense of Marriage Act has since been determined by most of the public to be unConstitutional...which is why the White House has decided to stop defending it in Federal Courts.

California has passed a law by vote. That STATE has determined that gay couples are not eligible for the required LEGAL CONTRACT to get married. This is a STATE level decision. The FEDERAL government is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States to make the same judgement based on religious belief.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: Oh and "Christian Marriage" is a historical institution between a man and a women...that in no way represents what other religions around the world believe. Like most religious people though, you are close minded and blind to the fact that other people think differently than you and that maybe, just maybe, you and your brand of fantasy could be wrong.
10 months ago: PH, maybe this will answer your question...
"Why is Government in the Marriage business?"

Truth & Triumph
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1xrJJANy...

- DOMA was enacted by an 84% margin
-"Government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children"
- The ideal family structure for a child is with opposite sex biological parents
- There are no 'generic' people, so there shouldn't be 'generic' parents
- Marriage laws like DOMA don't go against the constitution
- Protecting the definition of Family and necessity of mothers and fathers

10 months ago: Truth, perhaps its because you aren't actually American, that you fail to understand the concept of American Democracy. Allow me to give you a brief lesson:

The founding fathers established three branches of government, the judicial, executive, and legislative. Each of the three branches were afforded powers which would enable them to check the powers of the other branches in order to prevent abuse of power, etc. One of the powers of the Judicial Branch, as established in Marbury v. Madison, is the power of judicial review. The judicial branch may review the constitutionality of laws and, if necessary, overturn laws, either in whole or in part, which are deemed unconstitutional.

This is what happened in California where Prop 8 is concerned. Sometimes it happens, that it is necessary to put the constitution before the will of the majority in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority (read the federalist papers). There have been many instances throughout history where this has been helpful. The civil rights cases, for instance. Brown v. Board anyone?? Cooper v. Aaron?? I could go on and on. Know your history before you argue for upholding historical traditions. :)
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: Here is an article about why Regnerus' study is flawed:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/aut...

Here's another one where Mr. Regnerus admits to tampering with his data and falsely presenting the data that was harmful to his far right wing ideology:
http://www.rolereboot.org/family/details...

As for parenting, there are hundreds of studies that show that children of gay parents have the same chances to succeed in life as those of traditional marriages. There is one study by Regnerus that states otherwise (oh and he is a known anti-gay rights activist)...
10 months ago: Ad Hominem attacks against the study in question, have no effect on the answers given by those 3000 participants, who's lives and testimonies are what the study's conclusions are about. That's the best you can do? Yyyaawwwnnn.

Truth is the study was published quickly because of it's volatile nature, and myth-busting facts, exposing the "normalcy fallacy" of gay parenting. It's not like this is "insider trading" ...data trends were overwhelming in favor of defining "difference".
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: I'm not suggesting the Ad Hominem attacks are what makes the study flawed. The fact that he submitted the article before the survey data was complete and the fact that he manipulated the data response coding so that they would appear to support his claim.

I know that most people here don't care, but I do have advanced degrees from research institutions. When doing a study using survey data the result codes are supposed to be determined prior to the data being analyzed, this is done in an effort to prevent data manipulation. What this man did was change certain coding around to present his arguments in a more favorable manner. It's not that its a criminal offense, but in terms of the validity of the research presented it does significantly damage the findings. Further, as with all research, one non-scholarly study does not refute the existence of hundreds of other scholarly and non-scholarly studies that prove the opposite. That said, it also doesn't mean that his results were wrong, it just means that he didn't do a very good job presenting his case...its kind of like when evidence is obtained illegally and is therefore unable to be submitted in court.
10 months ago: I thought you were more astute... the same link you posted featured numerous Ad Hominem attacks, and you take their claims of data-tampering for gospel? You are always touting that my refs are bogus because they are from religious organizations... well back at you... not only is your link gayreligious and it seems Google's "pride" this month features a flood of adverse links to a legit study.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: I take the words that came out his mouth when he said that he published before his data finished coming in and that he changed the coding...that's what my claim is based on.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: If the right wing activists spent even half as much time worrying about jobs or the economy as they do worrying about what people do in their own bedrooms we would probably be in a lot better place as a country
10 months ago: PH,

Before we continue, I want to say props to you for going toe-to-toe, out numbered... and I want to thank you for your patience to bring to the table the arguments out there in opposition, reflective of questions and assertions that exist. Though we differ in opinion, it is a great dialogue to address the heated issues, that many, quite frankly, can't endure without significant collateral damage. That being said... let's "drop the gloves" and keep going !:]
10 months ago: Same here PH. We have had some great discussions over the years and you lay what you have on the table in a civilized manner. Getting enthusiastic about ones ideas is one thing but becoming hostile or rude is another thing. I don't recall you ever being more than enthusiastic in these debates. Thanks for that.
10 months ago: Ditto that. I give him credit for guts and conviction right or wrong.
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: I know I can get a bit snippy at times. I do apologize for those momentary lapses in decorum.

The interesting thing about a debate site that centers on politics and religion is that very rarely is anyone actually "wrong"...just wrong in the eyes of the other side ;D
PerfectHorizon
PerfectHorizon
Chicago, IL
10 months ago: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
~Aristotle
10 months ago: Well quoted PH : )
10 months ago: What the... I leave you guys alone for a few hours (to go prep an engine for removal - in the rain) and I come back and everyone kissed and made up without me ?:]
10 months ago: Here is a Gay-Rights leader...

"San Francisco police have arrested veteran gay rights advocate Larry Brinkin in connection with felony possession of child pornography."
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-...%29
Secrios
Secrios
England
7 months ago: This research is irrelevant. You forget that dead beats and alcoholics raise their kids even worse. Love is the main glue that keeps a family together, not a homophobia. Now as I asked before, where is my damn liberal back up? Its lonely here with all these intellectual red necks.
7 months ago: Secrios,

I think your Liberal Back up, got their back-up... and won't be back !;]

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.